Author Archives: Paul Lamoureux

Where a high school guidance counselor hired the principal’s son for a summer teaching position without following the school’s standard hiring procedures, the guidance counselor violated the state conflict of interest law and will pay a $1,000 civil penalty.

Where plaintiffs filed a multi-count suit against the defendant, alleging that an enforceable agreement existed under which the plaintiffs were to be paid compensation in exchange for disclosure to the defendant of the name of a potential new client, we hold that a judge acted permissibly on the record in granting summary judgment to the defendant on estoppel, unjust enrichment and G.L.c. 93A claims, but not on claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Where a member of the Board of Registration in Pharmacy contacted the representative of a pharmaceutical provider, on behalf of one of that provider’s clients, while matters affecting the provider were before the board, this constituted a violation of the conflicts of interest law and will result in the member being required to pay a $2,000 penalty.

Where question exists as to whether the plaintiff pleaded the jurisdictional amount in its breach of contract suit in good faith, I will afford the plaintiff two weeks to show cause, in a memorandum not to exceed five pages, why its complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Where a securities fraud defendant has moved to compel discovery by the plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission, I find that the parties are capable of resolving this dispute by meeting and conferring.

Where a defendant corporation has moved to certify as an appealable interlocutory order a March 18, 2011 memorandum and order holding that the defendant had violated the Massachusetts Tips Law, I find that the defendant’s motion should be denied because (1) the order does not involve a controlling question of law as to which there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion and (2) an immediate appeal will not materially advance the termination of litigation.

Where drug certificates were introduced against a defendant without any accompanying testimony from an analyst and this constitutional error was not harmless, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction for trafficking in 200 grams or more of cocaine and remand for further proceedings as may be appropriate.

Where drug certificates were introduced against a defendant without any accompanying analyst testimony and such error was not harmless, we must reverse the defendant’s convictions for distribution of cocaine in a school zone and as a subsequent offense and remand for further proceedings as may be appropriate.

Where the Appellate Division of the District Court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff on his claims against the defendant for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, we hold that the judgment on the malicious prosecution claim was improper and must be reversed but that the judgment may stand as to the other claims.